Predictors of diagnostic yield in bronchoscopy: a retrospective cohort study comparing different combinations of sampling techniques

The reported diagnostic yield from bronchoscopies in patients with lung cancer varies greatly. The optimal combination of sampling techniques has not been finally established. The objectives of this study were to find the predictors of diagnostic yield in bronchoscopy and to evaluate different combi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC pulmonary medicine 2008-01, Vol.8 (1), p.2-2, Article 2
Hauptverfasser: Roth, Kjetil, Hardie, Jon A, Andreassen, Alf H, Leh, Friedemann, Eagan, Tomas Ml
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The reported diagnostic yield from bronchoscopies in patients with lung cancer varies greatly. The optimal combination of sampling techniques has not been finally established. The objectives of this study were to find the predictors of diagnostic yield in bronchoscopy and to evaluate different combinations of sampling techniques. All bronchoscopies performed on suspicion of lung malignancy in 2003 and 2004 were reviewed, and 363 patients with proven malignant lung disease were included in the study. Sampling techniques performed were biopsy, transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), brushing, small volume lavage (SVL), and aspiration of fluid from the entire procedure. Logistic regression analyses were adjusted for sex, age, endobronchial visibility, localization (lobe), distance from carina, and tumor size. The adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for a positive diagnostic yield through all procedures were 17.0 (8.5-34.0) for endobronchial lesions, and 2.6 (1.3-5.2) for constriction/compression, compared to non-visible lesions; 3.8 (1.3-10.7) for lesions > 4 cm, 6.7 (2.1-21.8) for lesions 3-4 cm, and 2.5 (0.8-7.9) for lesions 2-3 cm compared with lesions
ISSN:1471-2466
1471-2466
DOI:10.1186/1471-2466-8-2